Gold America Group - Front Page

How We Get There

AuGeo — Fri, 26 Feb 2010 02:26:10 GMT

Forwarded from Liberty for America magazine.

We start moving in the right direction by putting our Libertarian party on the New Path, the path to Libertarian Renewal.

Just imagine if every election campaign included a Libertarian candidate. Just imagine if we were the majority party. Just imagine if our sound social and financial policies restored true American greatness, the greatness of being the country that offers its people more freedom and more prosperity than anywhere else. Just imagine if our wise foreign and domestic policies made America once again that shining city on the sunlit hill, the country whose very existence signified peace, liberty, and opportunity.

That's wonderful to imagine. How do we get there?

Every journey begins with a first step. The journey may be long. Some of us may not live to reach our destination. But if we do not take the first steps on our journey, none of us will ever reach it.

The New Path, the path to Libertarian Renewal, is a commitment to take some of those first steps. The New Path starts by fixing our National Party, so that it plays an effective positive role in the greater Libertarian political movement.
The New Path will not take us to the America of our dreams. ?The New Path will set our party on the march in the right direction.

What is the New Path? The New Path promises thoughtful strategy, hard work, and persistence to start us on the road to a Libertarian majority. ?Not only doesn't the New Path promise miracles, the New Path promises that there are no miracles. ?

Where should we begin? ?Consider some early steps on the New Path. ?We need to start on all of them now.

Step Zero: Top down organization will not work in the twenty-first century. The National Committee can provide support. The National Committee can provide resource sharing. The National Committee can lead by example, by mobilizing like-minded libertarians to work on their choice of project. Top-down command-and-control did not work in Russia, and it will not work for our Libertarian Party, either.

Step Number One. ?Listen! ?The National Committee should listen carefully to the Libertarians in the trenches. ?Listening is the start of voluntary self-organization. Listen to our fellow Libertarians, the people from sea to sea who do the hard work for our party. Listen to their ideas. Listen to their hopes and fears, their thoughts and needs. ?Listen to their complaints, their reasons for joining or leaving our party.

Step Number Two. ?We need an effective, functional National Committee that spends its time doing real political work. ?Our National Committee has room for structural improvement. There's nothing wrong with bylaws or rules of order, but bylaws and rules of order are at most a means to the real end: We're here to win lots of elections. ?

Step Number Three: Mobilize the Libertarians. Our largest resource is the time and energy of our volunteers. ? Mobilize libertarians all across America to do active political work. Volunteer activism does not 'just happen'. ?It happens because it is supported by leadership.

Step Number Four: Sound financial management. ?The Libertarian National Committee dominates libertarian fundraising. ?It has an overwhelming moral responsibility to spend that money to do real politics. ?The new Libertarian Association of Massachusetts financial plan shows one effective way to reach this goal: ?Assign donations on arrival to concrete objectives, such as Outreach; don't let administrative costs soak up the entire budget.

Step Number Five: State and local group support: ?Our objective should be 54-'state' political activity, including the fifty states, D.C. Puerto Rico, Guam, and everywhere else our flag flies over American soil. ?Affiliate support includes includes volunteer and activism materials, like trifolds you can actually use after downloading, 'how-to' advice, and personal contact.

Step Number Six: Working Groups. Our National Committee should develop working groups to do political work. ?Working groups should be composed largely of libertarian volunteers, with a few LNC members to provide inspiration, support, and such resources as the LNC can generate.

Step Number Seven: We need real libertarian affinity groups and think tanks. ?We need more groups like Outright Libertarians and AntiWar.com that support our sides on issues. ?Reach out to other pro-liberty groups like DOMA-repeal groups, Anti-war Veterans, the Campaign4Liberty, and the Tea Parties. ?The LNC can't become those affinity groups and think tanks, but it can support member-volunteers who make it happen.

Step Number Eight: Public Outreach. ?More and more the American people are hearing the word 'Libertarian'. ?We need to make sure: When Americans hear 'Libertarian', they will immediately think of our sound policies, foreign and domestic, social and financial. ?We do that through outreach and advertising.

Step Number Nine: Young people. ?Most Americans only choose a political party once or twice in their entire life. ?When America's young people choose a political party, they should choose us. ?Their other alternative, after all, is national debt slavery to the warfare-welfare state. ?Young people need to know: We are the only road to a better America.

That's not a full list of steps, but it's a nice start for a new year just starting. ?We'd be delighted to listen to your ideas, too. ?

Statement Concerning Floor Fees for LP National Conventions

AuGeo — Fri, 26 Feb 2010 02:21:11 GMT

We strongly oppose the imposition of a floor fee by the LNC for credentialing of national delegates. The By-laws and Convention Rules are quite clear in saying that delegates are chosen by the states and do not allow additional requirements to be added by the national party.

A floor fee will restrict the delegates' participation in party business, hindering their ability to carry out their responsibilities to the state parties.

Given that the anticipated revenue from the floor fee amounts to only one percent of the LNC's 2-year budget, it seems unreasonable that the LNC should be unable to earmark 1% of its annual budget to cover expenses for a required event.

If we allow the LNC to circumvent the By-laws and Convention Rules in this seemingly small regard, we may find it difficult to keep it from running roughshod over the By-laws in more controversial matters in the future.

The statement above has been endorsed by the following individuals:
George Phillies - candidate, LNC Chair
Carolyn Marbry - candidate, LNC Vice Chair
Rob Power - candidate, LNC Secretary
James Oaksun - candidate, LNC Treasurer
Mary Ruwart - candidate, At-Large
R. Lee Wrights - candidate, At-Large
Rachel Hawkridge - candidate, LNC Regional Representative
Michael Seebeck - candidate, LNC Regional Representative
Jake Porter - candidate, LNC Regional Representative
Scott Williamson - candidate, LNC Regional Representative
Charles Wilhoit - candidate, LNC Regional Alternate
Eva Kosinski - 2008 National Convention Team

What my friends and I did for Massachusetts Libertarians

AuGeo — Fri, 26 Feb 2010 02:16:14 GMT

by George Phillies

How LAMA has changed since the 2006 State Convention - and all for the better.

In 2006, the Libertarian Association of Massachusetts was in sufficient straits that its regular yearly convention, which should have been called for April, did not occur. The State Committee had not met for three-quarters of a year. Finally, in May the outbound State Chair to his great credit asked Carol McMahon and I to organize and hold the next State Convention, which due to Bylaws constraints could be held no earlier than September.

We held the Convention, an almost entirely new State Committee being elected. Carol and I were re-elected. Long time Membership Secretary Jeff Chase was elected as a voting member; long-time Treasurer Walter Ziobro came back.
There then followed a prolonged period of trying to sort out all sorts of issues. Many of these took quite some time to fix, in some cases much longer than you would think necessary.

There are some useful lessons here. In an all-volunteer organization, sometimes you can replace your procedures. Sometimes you have to replace the people instead. Fixing a group will not happen overnight. However, it can be done. You do need a few things. You need people willing to do work. You need to be fairly vigorous about not listening to the voices who say 'we can't'.

Money: In 2006, one could note that there had been no fundraising drives since mid-2002. The State Party was substantially dependent on Unified Membership Plan income, meaning internal fundraising had atrophied and member feedback via the purse largely vanished. UMP money ran out in late 2006. The last monthly donor had stopped giving. Under new leadership, regular fund raising efforts were instituted. You can see that in our FEC reports, which show almost no income in the first half of 2007 and ramp up thereafter. Several unused objects having significant monthly costs and no benefits were terminated.

In January 2009, we had $3150 in the Federal Campaign account; we now have $4950, a 50% increase. When I became Treasurer in October 2008, we had $128 in State Campaign funds; we now have $3450. Our funds on hand have increased 2.5 times. If the national party were doing as well, given the USA has more people than Massachusetts, it would have $360,000 cash on hand. More important, income is consistently increasing. LAMA income rose 50% from 2007 to 2008, and a further 21% from 2008 to 2009. That's right, our income went up from election year to the next year.

Membership: The new State Committee inherited a large number of people who had via the LNC paid state party dues, but who had never received anything for their money. We gave them all an automatic year forwards membership; that appeared to be the ethical solution. We also had other groups of people who were on the membership rolls, were apparently not Life Members (in some cases, we could ask directly), and who had not paid us anything in years. Disentangling all this in ways that would not lead to anyone claiming we had cheated them took some time.

In addition, membership rules needed to be brought into the 21st century. In 2006 there were no provisions for electronic memberships (newsletter via PDF), family memberships, or donation or renewal via the web. There were no monthly donors. There were no meet up groups. Under the new committee all these things were added; about a third of our members now receive Mass Liberty electronically. We also greatly upgraded our renewal letters.

However, in late 2006, we had a very small number of real members, and a very large number of people with no attachment to the organization whose entirely nominal memberships had to be run out. The process took until Summer 2009, when the last nominal memberships expired and membership bottomed. Since then, LAMA membership has gone up 75%.

Newsletter: In 2006 the newsletter had not come out regularly in years. We immediately resumed monthly publication, first under my editorship and then under the Editorships of David Blau and later Steve Greffenius. There was a major effort to cut costs and improve results. The cost of printing and mailing the newsletter was cut 60%; we also went from black and white to color. With a couple of one-month drop-outs, mailing has continued monthly ever since.

Volunteer contact: In 2006, there was no volunteer contact effort. A program of contacting volunteers was instituted, first with a volunteer newsletter and now with telephone and email messaging. From 2008 to 2010, the number of Libertarian candidates, most running under the "Liberty" banner because of our weird ballot access issues, appears likely to be up substantially.

Web pages: In 2006, the web site had not been updated in a very long time. The former State Committee had not secured ownership of its own URL; the former webmaster, Muni Savyon, refused to turn the URL over to the new State Committee, and he is still refusing to do so. We registered alternative URLs, and - thanks to the hard work of first Bill Hees, then Mary-Anne Wolf, Bob Underwood, and soon Joe Kennedy - got a web site up. I was able to recover the old committee minutes and newsletter issues; you can see them on the new, improved web site. Bill Hees even managed to get a forwarder placed from the old LPMA.org address.

Art Torrey attached a forum device. More recently, we installed a SoapBlox object GoldMassGroup.com, which is closing on 600 readers.

Before 2006, when we were in a perpetual downward spiral. Since 2006 when my good friends took over LAMA activities. It took a while to turn the ship around, but we did that, and we are now in a pattern of growth and expansion: Membership up 75% from its bottom. Donations that increased from 2008 to 2009. A regular newsletter. A web page that still has a ways to go, but is far better than it had been. More and more campaigns, some attracting National attention.

An Open Letter to Region 4 State Leaders

Scott Williamson — Sun, 21 Feb 2010 07:30:11 GMT

If Olympians trained like the LNC

What if Apollo Ohno showed up on race day without his skates? The crowd yelled and screamed to him that he was not wearing his skates, yet Ohno was too busy concentrating on defeating his opponent that he did not notice that he was not even prepared to skate in the race. We have LNC members who are too busy concentrating on their perceived enemies that they do not even notice that they are not prepared for the race. While some tout their stellar mastery of Roberts Rules and others brag about their computer skills (that turn out to be not so great) they do not even seem to notice that they have state affiliates that are hurting. They turn their head and ignore the dwindling membership. While donations diminish they attempt to bandage the hemorrhage with floor fees for delegates to our National Convention.

I am offering our members solutions to our problems:

? Put a moratorium on LNC's use of Robert's Rules. Treat fellow LNC members with respect and dignity and allow all voices to be heard.

? Examine our fixed costs to discover why our party spends upwards of 35 % on overhead and, at best, 15% on real politics of campaigns, ballot access, media relations, etc. Determine the most cost effective way of meeting our party's needs and spending the savings on real politics.

? Offer training, brochures, and a better database to our state affiliates. Create advertisements for TV, radio, internet, and print that each affiliate can use at the local level. Strengthen our party nation-wide by strengthening each and every state affiliate.

? Grow our party by standing firm on libertarian principles and reaching into the gap created by the other partys' shifts to the left and right.

? Represent our region not just sit on the LNC as another vote. I will communicate often with State affiliate leaders keeping you informed about the actions of our national party and listening to your thoughts, ideas, and concerns. Facilitate the sharing of ideas between state leaders and proudly reporting the great successes of our region to our national party.

? Start listening to our members, state affiliates, and other activist. Recognizing that the best solutions to our problems will not come from those who are elected in Saint Louis. Harness the untapped talent of individuals in our Party by encouraging them to help the LNC to solve our greatest problems.

These are just a few ideas that I have that can help set our Party on a new path to a bright future. I will need help setting our party on this new path. That is why I am asking you to attend your State affiliate convention, become a delegate to the national convention, and support my candidacy. I ask that you also vote for Charles Wilhoit for Alternate. Together, Charles and I will work as a team to give you twice the support, twice the listening ear, and double the hard work.

Charles and I look forward to seeing you in Austin for LSLA!

For more information visit the campaign web site www.electwilliamson.com

Slate of LNC Candidates

AuGeo — Sat, 13 Feb 2010 03:00:25 GMT

The New Path to Libertarian Revival

And here are some choices at http://www.libertyforamerica.com/ , seen in the New Path section. There's even a partial list of LNC Candidates, some or many of whom you might want to consider supporting:

George Phillies -- National Chair
Carolyn Marbry -- National Vice Chair
Rob Power -- National Secretary
James Oaksun -- National Treasurer
Joe Kennedy -- At-Large
Jim Remmert -- At Large
Rachel Hawkridge -- Regional Representative
Jake Porter -- Regional Representative
Scott Williamson -- Regional Representative
Charles Wilhoit -- Regional Alternate

And note other fine candidates:
Michael Seebeck -- Regional Representative
Mary Ruwart -- At-Large
Lee Wrights -- At-Large

Each and all of us would be delighted to have endorsements from fine Libertarians such as those here.

Oaksun Announces for National Treasurer

AuGeo — Wed, 10 Feb 2010 03:39:14 GMT

To All Friends of Liberty:

Take a look at this chart. Take a good look.

Does this look like a picture of a vibrant, healthy, growing organization?

When I first started writing this statement, I wrote that the Libertarian Party was having a midlife crisis. But that's not right.

We're having an existential crisis. And the ship of liberty needs an immediate and radical change in direction.

I'm announcing my candidacy for LNC Treasurer. And I ask for your help and support as we work - together - to build a new and dynamic Libertarian Party of which we and an ever expanding cadre of newcomers can be proud.
I know some of you, have corresponded with many others... but some of you may be meeting me for the first time through this letter. So first, let me tell you a bit about who I am and how I have come to ask for your help and your support.

I'm 48, originally from Buffalo, New York, and have lived in southern Maine for the last 20 years. I'm a cum laude graduate of Dartmouth College, and earned an MBA in finance and accounting from Cornell University. I've also been granted Chartered Life Underwriter and Chartered Financial Consultant designations from The American College.

I spent more than 20 years of my professional life in Corporate America, nearly all of that working at a large insurance company, principally in the financial and actuarial organizations. I have now started my own independent financial consulting business, Virtual Galt Corporation, named after one of the fictional heroes of our movement.

I received a couple very serious wake up calls a few years back, and I had to make some tough personal decisions. So I'm not afraid to suggest and implement difficult, even radical, moves if they are in someone's or the group's best interest. That's a skill the LNC needs and I will bring it with me every day.

Now I ask: What can our party become? I have some ideas, and I have the time, the resources and the energy to drive them ahead.

A great group of people approached me and asked if I would consider taking this on, and I agreed.

This is not a matter of personality or what it says on which page of Robert's. Maybe I haven't been around long enough to push people's noses out of joint. I hope I never do. I have nothing against anybody who is serving today or has served before me, regardless of the role. I thank them and am grateful for their service.

There are two things we need to do, and do quickly.

1. Zero Based Budget.

We need to decide immediately which objectives are most important, and determine the most cost effective way to achieve them. We're not doing that right now. We need change. We need to start with a clean sheet of paper - from Zero - and build back up.

We're currently doing too much of some things, not enough of other things, and spending too much money on things of questionable value. We can fix our finances, but only if we make significant changes.

The first thing I will do when I am elected, is set up shop in the Party's headquarters for a time, at my own expense. I'll meet with the staff and critical vendors, review all relevant contracts and documents, and stay until I fully understand what is happening at ground level, line item by line item.

Then I will report to the LNC. Some things will require more money. Some things will have to be dropped, or altered.

2. Vision 2016.

What do we want to be? How much will that cost? And by when will it happen?

The LNC must decide in which directions to encourage our party. We don't need experts from afar. We have all the knowledge, ideas, people and experience we need.

I've picked 2016 as a target date. That's an election year.

A good interim goal would be to get our 2012 presidential candidate on all 50 state ballots. Here are some more of my ideas:

1. Candidate Support - Let's put together an electronic database for candidates, with libertarian talking points and other material. Right now we can't provide much financial help. But we ought to do something for the people "in the arena."

2. Media Placement - We need to get our message out through a co-ordinated and effective media placement campaign: LTEs, op-eds, blogs, talk radio, podcasting/video, even targeted television. We can do this at very little cost, but only if we have the will to drive the process.

3. Internet and email messaging and marketing - A few hours of consulting with nationally renowned experts will return the investment several fold.

4. Impact on fundraising - on a real (inflation adjusted) basis, fundraising declined by more than 70 percent this past decade. That's a disaster! We've got to get this fixed... and fast! I am ready to do my fair share as treasurer. We're never going to improve our fundraising unless we start communicating immediately a compelling vision of where we want our party to go, and how our contributors' and partner's resources will make that happen. No one wants to give money to pay excessive and improper overhead. Our contributors want - and deserve - results.

A Maine Story A few years back the LP-Maine basically went inactive. I noticed that acutely two years ago, as a delegate to Denver and afterwards. I offered to help, several times, and in several ways. No reply. Result? Among other things: No Barr/Root on the Maine ballot! What an embarrassment!

So about a year ago I founded Liberty For Maine. We've got a website. We have a blog with frequent and fresh content. We've been prominent at summer festivals in Maine. We've issued press releases, placed articles in the media, received coverage from national bloggers. And there's more to come.

And I can commit to you, our 2012 presidential candidate will be on the ballot here!

In Closing We have a tremendous opportunity. Independent-minded and disaffected voters are open to hearing an alternative.

Do we wish to offer that alternative? Or do we wish to mire ourselves in parliamentary arcana, purges, and side issues?

Root Makes Clear He Is Chair Candidate

AuGeo — Mon, 08 Feb 2010 04:21:15 GMT

Root Makes Clear He Is Chair Candidate

A few weeks ago, CA Libertarian Party Judicial Committee Chair (and LNC Chair candidate) Mark Hinkle circulated to some number of libertarians a formal statement on behalf of the Judicial Committee of the Libertarian Party of California. The statement read:

"For Immediate Release:

On Tuesday, January 26, 2010, the Judicial Committee of the Libertarian Party of California issued a ruling that overturned the suspension of a member by a vote of 5-0. While Robert's Rules of Order prevents the Judicial Committee from revealing the details of the proceedings, the Judicial Committee finds that it may comment on certain inaccurate information circulating about this case. The suspension of the member by the Executive Committee was not for the commission of any crime, the Judicial Committee was not asked to render a decision that depended on the determination of whether or not the member had committed any crime, and the statements of the causes for suspension that were submitted to the Judicial Committee did not pertain to any such crime.

The Judicial Committee recognizes that the Executive Committee acted within the authority granted to it by the Party Bylaws to vote to suspend a member for a specific cause or causes. The member also acted within the Bylaws by appealing the suspension to the Judicial Committee. The Judicial Committee met the time lines delineated by the Bylaws and held an extensive hearing during which both parties had the opportunity to present their cases and call witnesses. Following the hearing, the Judicial Committee carefully reviewed the statement of the causes, and the evidence and arguments, which had been submitted to it. The Judicial Committee concluded that neither the Executive Committee nor the member presented their respective cases effectively. The Executive Committee not having met the burden of proof on the causes as stated, and the Judicial Committee not being empowered nor inclined to extend or substitute for the stated causes, the Judicial Committee accordingly rendered a decision to overturn the suspension and restore the individual's membership as provided for under Section 6 of Bylaw 5.

Privacy considerations which are described in Robert's Rules of Order, as well as past precedents from membership suspensions by the Executive Committee, prevent the members of the Judiciary Committee from making any more specific comments with regard to this case. Individual members of the Judicial Committee are of course always free (as is any member of the Party) to advocate for improvements in such things as declarations of Party membership requirements and the quality of administrative procedures, but such advocacy should not be assumed to reflect on the merits of this individual case.

The Judicial Committee has reviewed and affirmed its decision of Tuesday, January 26, 2010."

Wayne Root's response appears below the fold.
Mindful of other disputes, this magazine has confirmed that the above release had nothing to do with LPCA member Bruce Cohen.

In response to the above announcement, prominent California Libertarian activist Michael Seebeck wrote Wayne Root, receiving the answer:

"This matter has been off my radar as I run multiple businesses, do hundreds of media interviews about Obama, Obamacare, and "state of the union", and run a family of 6. I try to stay out of LP affairs- especially on the state level. This was for California to handle. I just cannot get involved in every intra-party issue.

But now that these results are public, I may very well weigh in.

All I can say without knowing all the facts yet, is this is precisely why I'm going to run for National Chairman.

I'm sure you are well aware of how I felt about the opinions written in a book by a potential LP candidate for President in 2008. Those opinions on the topic of "age of consent" shocked and sickened me. I was the ONLY major LP figure that spoke out loudly.

This decisions sounds even worse.

I will look into it and do whatever I can to fight it, reverse it, and/or prevent it from ever happening again.

But the whole incident highlights the problems and disconnect from reality that have held this party back for 39 years... and why I'm running for National Chair- TO DRAMATICALLY CHANGE "business as usual."

Wayne

Poll: Vote for National Chair

AuGeo — Sat, 06 Feb 2010 18:45:33 GMT

We present a poll as to which actual candidate you support for National Chair of the Libertarian National Committee.

Vote for any or all.

Liberty for All: In opposition to Floor Fees

AuGeo — Fri, 05 Feb 2010 03:16:45 GMT

Posting as "Friends of the Membership", prominent Libertarians and LNC members today issued via http://LibertyForAll.net a joint statement opposing convention floor fees. The statement and signatories are:

We strongly oppose the imposition of a floor fee by the LNC for credentialing of national delegates. The By-laws and Convention Rules are quite clear in saying that delegates are chosen by the states and do not allow additional requirements to be added by the national party.
A floor fee will restrict the delegates' participation in party business, hindering their ability to carry out their responsibilities to the state parties.
Given that the anticipated revenue from the floor fee amounts to only one percent of the LNC's 2-year budget, it seems unreasonable that the LNC should be unable to earmark 1% of its annual budget to cover expenses for a required event.
If we allow the LNC to circumvent the By-laws and Convention Rules in this seemingly small regard, we may find it difficult to keep it from running roughshod over the By-laws in more controversial matters in the future.
The statement above has been endorsed by the following individuals:
George Phillies - candidate, LNC Chair
Carolyn Marbry - candidate, LNC Vice Chair
Rob Power - candidate, LNC Secretary
James Oaksun - candidate, LNC Treasurer
Mary Ruwart - candidate, At-Large
R. Lee Wrights - candidate, At-Large
Rachel Hawkridge - candidate, LNC Regional Representative
Michael Seebeck - candidate, LNC Regional Representative
Jake Porter - candidate, LNC Regional Representative
Scott Williamson - candidate, LNC Regional Representative
Charles Wilhoit - candidate, LNC Regional Alternate
Eva Kosinski - 2008 National Convention Team

Root Announces for Chair

AuGeo — Sun, 31 Jan 2010 16:34:14 GMT

In an email forwarded to Liberty for America magazine, Wayne Root has announced he is running for National Chair of the Libertarian Party. He also renews his attacks on Mary Ruwart.

The text of the letter reads:

This matter has been off my radar as I run multiple businesses, do hundreds of media interviews about Obama, Obamacare, and "state of the union", and run a family of 6. I try to stay out of LP affairs- especially on the state level. This was for California to handle. I just cannot get involved in every intra-party issue.
But now that these results are public, I may very well weigh in.
All I can say without knowing all the facts yet, is this is precisely why I'm going to run for National Chairman.
I'm sure you are well aware of how I felt about the opinions written in a book by a potential LP candidate for President in 2008. Those opinions on the topic of "age of consent" shocked and sickened me. I was the ONLY major LP figure that spoke out loudly.
This decisions sounds even worse.
I will look into it and do whatever I can to fight it, reverse it, and/or prevent it from ever happening again.
But the whole incident highlights the problems and disconnect from reality that have held this party back for 39 years... and why I'm running for National Chair- TO DRAMATICALLY CHANGE "business as usual."

"The incident" refers to a matter now covered on Independent Political Report

The Party and the Pendulum

Scott Williamson — Sun, 31 Jan 2010 02:27:33 GMT

When we meet another libertarian we often spend the first few minutes sizing them up and trying to determine the nuances of their philosophy. Once we have this piece of the puzzle we too often create a relationship based on if a person is one of "us" or one of "them". The fact of the matter is the "them" is never our fellow libertarians, but those statists who wave the flag with one hand while stealing our liberties with the other.

A pendulum swinging back and forth never moves forward. We can have a national committee full of self described "radicals" that refuse to let any "reformer" have input. The following convention the "reformers" can take over the national committee and shut out the "radicals". In the end we are back where we started. We will never manage to move forward if part of the national committee spends its time trying to silence members who disagree with them. We will not survive if we continue to allow LNC subcommittees to hold meetings in which some members were excluded because other members disagreed with them.

The Libertarian National Committee needs to live up to the libertarian philosophy of personal liberty. We have to accept that our fellow libertarians will sometimes disagree with us. We can only create a libertarian society when we spend less time as a party fighting over how we word our message and more time spreading our message.

The party must stand firm on its principals of individual liberty and personal responsibility. With the Democrat pendulum swinging to the left and the Republican pendulum swinging to the right, some argue the Libertarian Party needs to rush into the void. By moving our party to the left or the right we are just creating another void "up". We cannot and should not compromise our philosophy to fill a void. Where would this leave our party when the Republican or Democrat pendulum swings back? Instead of moving into the void we should reach into the void. Through outreach and education we will bring those who are left politically homeless by their parties into the Libertarian Party.

We should never mistake the Libertarian National Committee for our Libertarian Party. Our party is not a committee of seventeen. Our Libertarian Party is the people who run for office, donate money, and volunteer their time. The party is those who are activist working to change the world. Our Libertarian Party is us.

Our Libertarian National Committee needs to listen to our members, the people who elect the committee, to listen where they want their donations spent and on which path they want to go. Then our LNC should lead the way. Our National Committee should learn what our party actually needs from a national office and then find an economical way to meet our needs. When we listen to activist on the front line and meet their needs we will move our party and our society into a bright future of freedom.

Scott Williamson is a candidate for LNC Regional Representative and can be contacted at scott.williamson01@comcast.net

James Oaksun: Where Did the Money Go?

AuGeo — Sat, 30 Jan 2010 15:44:51 GMT

AuGeo is pleased to be able to forward this piece of financial analysis from LNC Treasurer candidate James Oaksun. by James R. Oaksun, MBA, CLU, ChFC

The 2009 ballot question on gay marriage in Maine was the most expensive initiative campaign in Maine history, and the third most expensive statewide political campaign in the state's history. More than $7 million was spent on both sides. Only the U.S. Senate races of 2002 and 2008 were more costly.

This report will examine where the money got spent, on both the "Yes" (anti-equality) and "No" (pro-equality) sides. There were some significant differences in how the funds were allocated among different sources. Brief synopses will be provided on the major vendors on both sides. Finally, some suggestions for future equality campaigns will be offered. [More Below Fold]
Step One: Get the Issue On the Ballot

Before there could even be a campaign, the "People's Veto" needed to get the requisite number of signatures to qualify it for the state ballot. In Maine, that requires collecting roughly 55,000 signatures. Stand for Marriage Maine (the Yes on 1 campaign) spent more than $300,000 to gather the signatures. A Michigan-based firm, National Petition Management, was contracted to perform this task. They succeeded. Still, this meant that Yes on 1 needed to raise $300,000 before there could even be a campaign. In my analysis I consider this to be pre-campaign expenditures and do not include it in my ratio calculations.

Step Two: Make a Budget

When planning a major project, you need a budget. Decisions get made, dollars allocated, vendors selected. Here we know exactly who got what. We also know that one side won, and one side lost. Were there differences in how the allocations were made? It turns out there were some very significant differences that might suggest a different approach for equality forces in future campaigns.

No on 1 (the pro equality side) spent nearly $5 million on the campaign. Yes on 1 (the anti-gay marriage side) had substantially fewer resources -- about $2.5 million. The two sides allocated their funds as follows:

Yes No
TV/Radio 1,637 2,551
Signs/Literature/Mailing 307 810
People -- Employees and Consultants 270 343
Internet 113 343
Polling 176 160
Phones 1 267
All Other 64 130
(all amounts $000)

A series of observations are apparent:
1. Yes on 1 overweighted traditional media, and as a result was relatively competitive with the equality forces on the airwaves.
2. Yes on 1 spent absolutely more dollars in opinion polling than No on 1, and more than twice as much on a relative basis.
3. No on 1 spent a huge amount on direct mail.
4. No on 1 also spent a large amount on phone banking. Yes on 1 shows practically no expenses for this.
5. No on 1 spent nearly $350,000 on Internet activity web site design and management, and advertising. More on this later.
6. Though much was made of hiring Frank Schubert to manage the Yes on 1 effort, No on 1 still spent $63,000 more on staff and consultants than did the anti-equality forces (including Schubert's fee). (Incidentally, Schubert's fee was $110,000. In addition, he billed the campaign roughly $26,000 in travel and additional expenses. The recent New York Times article citing Schubert's costs at well over $300,000 was incorrect.)

Now to consider who exactly got the money. First, the pro-equality No on 1 expenses:

1. McMahon Squier -- $2.6 Million
Long active in Democratic politics, this Alexandria, Virginia-based organization has a decent track record. The vast majority of this amount was for purchased TV and radio time. Typically commissions on ad buys range from 10 to 15 percent. I assume they also did the creative work on the ads -- the scripts and such. Presumably, therefore, some of their commission is analogous to Frank Schubert's base payment from Yes on 1, as Schubert claims to do substantially all the creative for the anti-equality campaigns. (Incidentally, McMahon Squier is the chief media consultant for Maine's Democratic Governor, John Baldacci.)

2. Mission Control -- $779,000
This is a Connecticut-based direct mail operation. According to their website, they produce "the only junk mail you'll ever read twice." They work exclusively with Democratic candidates and progressive causes.

3. Mundy Katowitz -- $319,000
This firm, based in Washington, DC, is something of a mystery. Their website is "under construction." Five principal members are named. The firm apparently does new media/Internet work for Democrats.

4. Winding Creek -- $200,000
This is a telemarketing firm, based in Washington, DC, that does phone work for Democrats.

5. Greenberg Quinlan Rosner -- $160,000
This is a longtime Washington, DC-based polling firm. While they do corporate work as well, their principal focus is work with Democrats and progressive causes. Stan Greenberg came onto the national scene in the 1992 campaign for his work with Bill Clinton.

The anti-equality/Yes on 1 vendors have their own degree of mystery.

1. Mar/Com Associates -- $1.6 million
This was the Yes on 1 media shop. Analagous to McMahon Squier, they produce advertisements and book the air time, holding back a 10-15 percent commission. Mar/Com appears to be a shell company under the aegis of a man named Bill Criswell, of Criswell Associates in San Francisco. Very little information is available about this firm; their website is "under construction."

2. National Petition Management -- $308,000
This Michigan based firm has a long track record in successfully gathering signatures for conservative causes.

3. Aaron, Thomas and Associates -- $189,000
This is a direct mail operation, based in California, and hired by Frank Schubert. Very little information is available about them.

4. Public Policy Strategies -- $147,000
This was Yes on 1's pollster. According to Frank Schubert, this is actually an East Coast polling firm that is operating under an alias (and with a Nevada mail drop). Schubert claims vendors do this because LGBT activists harass and target firms that work on anti-equality campaigns. As it is currently unclear who this polling firm is, we cannot say anything further about them.
In addition to Public Policy Strategies, Yes on 1 utilized Lawrence Research of Santa Ana, California, to do some polling.

5. Schubert Flint -- $136,000
This is the Sacramento, California-based firm that provided general campaign management and strategy for Yes on 1, as it had done (successfully) for California Proposition 8 in 2008.

A Strategy Going Forward

In my previous report on the California, Maine and Washington campaigns, I suggested some strategic changes. Here I go further. If they are to start prevailing, the marriage equality forces also need a strategic redesign of their campaign organizational and operational structure. They should take a page from the winners. Success is success. They may disagree with their opponents' motives and actions, but their opponents are winning at the ballot box and there may be something to learn from them.

Here is how the anti-equality forces set up their campaigns:

a. National Organization for Marriage, the Catholic Church and various conservative/Christian denominations (such as the Mormons) are the funders. They raise the money through a variety of mechanisms.
b. A professional campaign manager, with a record of success, is hired and is then rehired in subsequent campaigns. The wheel is not reinvented with each spin of the electoral process.
c. Scientific polling is overweighted in the budget. Push polling may or may not be used.
d. A small number of senior local operatives are hired as consultants.

In contrast, here is how the equality efforts are run:
a. A new campaign manager, with unclear experience and record especially against nationally renowned opposition, is hired for each campaign.
b. Not only does this inexperienced management team have to run a campaign, they also have to run a fundraising operation, with phone banking and the like.
c. Scientific polling is underweighted.
d. Overweighting is done to vendors with longstanding ties to the Democratic Party, utilizing mechanisms of questionable or obsolete effectiveness.

What I am suggesting here is a totally functional organizational model. Call it "Equality Inc" or something. It is a matrixed organization; there is no overall head per se. There are well defined functions that do their appointed tasks and do them with rigorous effectiveness.

The $5 million spent by No on 1 amounts to about $20 per vote. On a per capita basis, this was three times as much as was spent by the California No on 8 campaign (which also lost). Throwing more money at this issue, without serious reconsideration of strategy and organization, will be money wasted.
(c) 2009 Liberty For Maine and Virtual Galt Corporation.
All rights reserved.

PO Box 961
www.Liberty4Maine.org
Portland, ME 04104 www.VirtualGalt.com
603.397.3387

About Liberty for Maine

The mission of Liberty For Maine is to advance the interests of freedom and liberty in Maine in an active, creative and assertive manner, offer support to similar efforts underway in many other states and nationally, and engage in other activities as appropriate.The group has declared its support for the Statement of Principles of the national Libertarian Party.

Mary Ruwart: Minority Report of the DCC

Forwarder — Sat, 23 Jan 2010 15:30:39 GMT

Forwarder writes: The DCC is the Donor Confidentiality Committee, formed by the LNC at its last meeting to deal with issues related to pubic representations as to Lee Wrights' membership status by the LNC, in the form of its Treasurer. Mary Ruwart has written a minority report dealing with that Committee's findings, including a detailed description of the peculiar path the Committee followed in generating its report. Because the Minority report is a bit complex, we open with a summary taken from Liberty for America magazine

Minority Report of the
Donor Confidentiality Committee

We now turn to Mary Ruwart's minority report to the Libertarian National Committee from the LNC ad hoc Donor Confidentiality Committee. The report is a bit long, so a short summary is in order.

Readers will recall that last Spring an effort was made to remove Lee Wrights from the National Committee, based on claims that he was not or had ceased to be a sustaining member of the National Party. During the affaire, claims about Mr. Wrights membership status, in the form of a memo from Aaron Starr, appeared on IndependentPoliticalReport.com. According to Ruwart's report, the memo made a number of claims about Wrights that have not been substantiated and that were damaging to Lee Wrights.

At the Summer LNC Meeting, the LNC formed a Donor Confidentiality Committee to make recommendations to the LNC for protecting the good names of its donors. Chairman Redpath appointed to the committee Mary Ruwart, and then Mark Hinkle, Stuart Flood, M Carling,...and Aaron Starr, whose memorandum was the proximate justification for forming the committee.

The conduct of the committee, as described in the Minority Report, may be characterized as 'interesting'. Apparently Messrs. Carling and Starr wrote a 'final report', vetted by Mr. Flood, which they shared with Mr. Hinkle, but not with the fifth Committee member, Dr. Ruwart. There was allegedly a conference call to approve the report. According to Ruwart, Starr demanded that Hinkle exclude Ruwart from the conference call, Ruwart writing:

"When I told Mr. Hinkle that I was available for the meeting, he told me that I could not participate because Mr. Starr had specifically asked that I be excluded until the document was "finalized." When I pointed out that he, as Committee Chair, could overrule Mr. Starr's request, Mr. Hinkle said he was unwilling to do so because he felt beholden to Mr. Starr for preparing the report. Although Mr. Hinkle did not appreciate being excluded from earlier meetings, he was quite willing to continue to exclude me."

And now, below the fold, the actual report:
Minority Report of the
Donor Confidentiality Committee

We now turn to Mary Ruwart's minority report to the Libertarian National Committee from the LNC ad hoc Donor Confidentiality Committee. The report is a bit long, so a short summary is in order. Readers will recall that last Spring an effort was made to remove Lee Wrights from the National Committee, based on claims that he was not or had ceased to be a sustaining member of the National Party. During the affaire, claims about Mr. Wrights membership status, in the form of a memo from Aaron Starr, appeared on IndependentPoliticalReport.com. According to Ruwart's report, the memo made a number of claims about Wrights that have not been substantiated and that were damaging to Lee Wrights.

"When I told Mr. Hinkle that I was available for the meeting, he told me that I could not participate because Mr. Starr had specifically asked that I be excluded until the document was "finalized." When I pointed out that he, as Committee Chair, could overrule Mr. Starr's request, Mr. Hinkle said he was
unwilling to do so because he felt beholden to Mr. Starr for preparing the report. Although Mr. Hinkle did not appreciate being excluded from earlier meetings, he was quite willing to continue to exclude me."

We go downhill from here, and the details are on page 8, finally reaching Dan Karlan's demand that Ruwart suppress large parts of her own report. And now, the actual report:

Minority Report of the
Donor Confidentiality Committee
By Mary J. Ruwart, Ph.D.

The Donor Confidentiality Committee was formed to propose policy to protect the confidentiality of donor information and to prevent further instances of the negligence which resulted in Mr. Wrights' donor information being posted on public blogs. This Committee has not fulfilled its mission primarily because of the conflicts of interest that continue to drive it. As a result, the LNC has opened itself up to the possibility of legal liability should future incidents occur.

Why Donor Confidentiality Is Crucial

In July 2009, I proposed a motion to protect donor confidentiality at the LNC meeting in St. Louis (i.e., "except as required by law, all donor records will be treated as private and confidential"). The motion was inspired by Mr. Starr's failure to label his memo of April 21, 2009 to the LNC concerning Mr. Wrights' donor information as "confidential." In the absence of such labeling, material posted to the LNC-Discuss list was routinely finding its way to public blogs. Indeed, Mr. Starr's memo appeared on Independent Political Review (IPR) less than 18 minutes after it was sent to the LNC. It is possible that this nine page memo, with its small type, was read by an LNC member, sent to someone at IPR who read it, wrote the 3-4 paragraph introduction to the posting, and uploaded it. However, with the tight time window, it is more likely that someone already had Mr. Starr's memo and was ready to upload it as soon as it was sent to the LNC.

In the industry I work in, failure to label proprietary information as "confidential" and to take adequate security measures to protect it, is a firing offense. While Mr. Starr routinely labels even his draft budgets as "confidential," he neglected to do so for Mr. Wrights' private donor information. Mr. Starr's memo makes a number of claims that have not been substantiated, including the assertion that Mr. Wrights dues' payment for 2008, made through Sean Haugh, was an "illegal contribution." Mr. Starr also claims that HQ records indicate that Mr. Wrights' dues lapsed in February 2004 and that he did not renew his membership until January 2005. Mr. Wrights has repeatedly stated that his February 2004 dues were paid by his wife, who was credited with a membership by mistake. He has also asserted that HQ was directed to correct his records prior to his election as Vice Chair in 2004. Mr. Dixon, who served as Chair during the time that Mr. Wrights was Vice Chair, recently wrote Chairman Redpath confirming that Mr. Wrights' records were indeed in disarray during the time he served. In a telephone conversation with me, Mr. Redpath said that he found Mr. Dixon's information vague and unconvincing. He pointed out that if Mr. Wrights had indeed paid dues in January 2004, UMP records should testify to that fact. Encouraged by his suggestion, and with Mr. Wrights' permission, I investigated further.

Excerpts from UMP records from November and December of 2004 list Mr. Wrights with an expiration date of 2/24/2005. These reports would contain this information only if, at the time of their generation, Mr. Wrights' last dues payment was listed in his records as 2/24/2004.

A December 2004 listing of national LP members broken down by state includes Mr. Wrights as well. Although this record does not list expiration dates, the inclusion of Mr. Wrights indicates that he was indeed a member in good standing when the list was generated.

Thus, the preponderance of the evidence (Mr. Dixon's statement, UMP records from 2004, lists of national members by state from 2004) support Mr. Wrights' contention that his 2004 dues had been paid and that he was indeed properly elected as LNC Vice Chair in that year. Evidently, his records at one time registered a dues payment on 2/24/2004, a notation which appears to have been removed at some later date either by accident or by design.

Unfortunately, Mr. Wrights' record snafu is not unusual. After reviewing this material with me, Mr. Benedict stated, "I have lots of emails back from 2004 about lots of people having problems with their memberships when the conversion to the new Raiser's Edge database occurred. Even before then, I have lots of email about problems keeping membership records straight. I will keep working to improve our database and record keeping."

Now, dear colleagues, you can appreciate that we have a major public relations issue on our hands. Although Mr. Starr meticulously labels many things sent to the LNC as "confidential," he neglected to take this standard precaution with his memo containing private donor information with which he was entrusted as Treasurer of this body. Clearly, we need a policy that mandates at least this minimal protection for contributions by our donors. We demand it of our mailing houses and other vendors
when we give them donor information so that they can execute their duties. Surely we should hold our Treasurer and ourselves to the same standard.

If you have doubts about the importance of such a policy, consider the consequences of Mr. Starr's negligence to both Mr. Wrights and to the Party. Let us first consider Mr. Wrights. If he stands for reelection to the LNC in 2010, he will have to counter false and derogatory statements made by Mr. Starr in his blogged memo. To appreciate their impact fully, imagine as you read them that they are said about your election to the LNC and about your membership status, lifetime or otherwise:

Page 7: "Neither Mr. Wrights, nor anyone else on his behalf, paid his dues during the twelve months leading up to the 2004 convention, when it was believed that he was elected to the position of national Vice Chair for the 2004-2006 term."

"While we all had believed that R. Lee Wrights had been elected to the board as the Vice Chair in May 2004, he was not elected Vice Chair because he was clearly not eligible due to his last gift date being February 24, 2003."

"I do not know whether R. Lee Wrights knew that he was not eligible at the time of the 2004 convention, but he clearly was not."

Page 8: "Because R. Lee Wrights was not a dues paying member at the time he ran for the Vice Chair position in May 2004, he was not elected Vice Chair and we did not have a legitimately qualified Vice Chair during that term."

"R. Lee Wrights served as an at-large representative during the 2002-2004 LNC term; he failed to maintain eligibility to serve during the term, due to a lapse in his status as a current dues-paying member as of February 24, 2004."

"R. Lee Wrights served as Vice Chair during the 2004-2006 term; he was ineligible to be elected to the position, and waited until nearly eight months into the term before taking action to become eligible." Please note that there is no equivocation in these statements; they are made as if they were facts. Mr. Starr did not check with Mr. Wrights for verification prior to making these remarks. Had he done so, he would have saved himself and the Libertarian Party a great deal of embarrassment. Mr. Wrights has told me that every attorney he has checked with assures him that Mr. Starr's words would likely allow him to prevail in a libel suit. Mr. Starr, who has criticized other members of this Board for using words that might create liability, has actually put this Board and the Party at risk. If we do not put policies in place to keep such things from happening again, we are setting ourselves and the Party up for future liability suits.

As our Treasurer, Mr. Starr's failure to protect confidential donor information adequately and failure to verify it prior to making such strong, derogatory statements reflects badly on the Party itself. If this is how our Treasurer treats fellow Board members, what can the average donor expect from us? How can they be sure that our Treasurer or someone else with access to their records won't use their contribution history to lambaste them rather than laud them?

How can we expect donors to send us money if we take no steps to protect their privacy? How can they expect us to keep accurate records if we can't do so for At-Large representatives? If a Board member can't get his records straightened out and is targeted with libel as a result, how can the average rank-and- file donor expect to be treated?

Our fiduciary responsibility to the Party requires that we take action to insure that private donor information will, in the future, be treated in a manner befitting its confidential status. It should be shared only with authorized personnel willing to take precautions to keep it confidential, except perhaps for publicly honoring---not dishonoring---donors.

Why the Donor Confidentiality Committee Is Ineffective

When I presented my motion at our July meeting in St. Louis in an attempt to insure that private donor information would, in the future, be treated as confidential, Ms. Matteson suggested that a 5-person committee be formed, presumably to study the issue and craft a better solution than the one I had proposed. After the meeting, Chairman Redpath assigned Mr. Hinkle, Mr. Flood, Mr. Carling, Mr. Starr and myself to the Committee.

In my e-mail of August 7, 2009 to LNC-Discuss, I pointed out that Mr. Starr had a clear conflict of interest and should not be sitting on the Committee (hereafter referred to as the DCC). I asked the Chair to remove Mr. Carling as well. Mr. Carling is not a voting member of the LNC and is a close, long-term
associate of Mr. Starr's who might have difficulty being objective in this matter.

Mr. Redpath responded that he had placed Mr. Starr on the DCC because he was the Treasurer; Mr. Carling was appointed because he was Chair of the Audit Committee. Mr. Redpath thus felt justified in letting these appointments stand, and neither Mr. Carling nor Mr. Starr offered to step down. The
conflict of interest represented by these appointments has, in my opinion, driven the agenda of this Committee from its inception.

For example, on August 7, Mr. Starr issued a memo to the DCC to direct its activities. Since Mr. Starr was acting as if he had been appointed chair, I asked Mr. Redpath if he had made the appointment. He said he had not and appointed Mr. Hinkle as Chair on August 13.

I heard nothing further about this committee until Mr. Hinkle called me on Sunday, November 29, a little after 2pm CST. Mr. Hinkle informed me that a committee report, crafted by Mr. Starr and Mr. Carling, and vetted by Mr. Flood, had been sent to him the night before. Mr. Hinkle told me he felt "excluded,"
since all this had taken place without his knowledge or participation.

I told Mr. Hinkle that I felt even more excluded, since no one on the DCC, including its chair, had bothered to send me the document. Since Mr. Hinkle did not immediately offer to forward it to me, I asked that he do so; to his credit, he immediately complied.

Mr. Hinkle went on to say that the document expanded member access to all details of Board Member donations, which would have retroactively whitewashed Mr. Starr's failure to treat Mr. Wrights' donor information as confidential. Mr. Hinkle told me that this was a deal breaker for him and that he intended to have it reversed in the conference call of the DCC which was at 3pm CST, approximately 20 minutes away.

When I told Mr. Hinkle that I was available for the meeting, he told me that I could not participate because Mr. Starr had specifically asked that I be excluded until the document was "finalized." When I pointed out that he, as Committee Chair, could overrule Mr. Starr's request, Mr. Hinkle said he was unwilling to do so because he felt beholden to Mr. Starr for preparing the report. Although Mr. Hinkle did not appreciate being excluded from earlier meetings, he was quite willing to continue to exclude me.

Around 4pm CST, Mr. Hinkle called again to tell me that the Mr. Starr had agreed to reverse the expanded member access to Board Member donation details. He said that the DCC wanted to meet with me in 10 minutes and get my approval so that it could be sent to HQ to be inserted in the binders for the upcoming meeting (the deadline for such submission was Monday morning, November 30). Since I had not yet been given the revised document, I told Mr. Hinkle that I would need time to review it.

Mr. Hinkle immediately sent me the revisions. As I perused the document, I realized that it needed more work and that time was necessary to consider its ramifications. Mr. Hinkle notified the DCC at 6:48 pm CST by e-mail that I would need approximately 24 hours to review and revise it. At 6:53 pm CST, Mr. Carling sent an e-mail to the committee, indicating that he was willing to send the document to HQ without my input if two other members supported this idea. I responded that I would submit a minority report if my input continued to be excluded. The other members of the committee elected to hear my comments.

The DCC met by phone to consider my revisions Monday night, November 30 at approximately 10pm CST. As I attempted to walk the DCC through my proposed changes, Mr. Starr continuously interrupted with patronizing diatribes. Our Treasurer, who has regularly championed "decorum" this term, was a poor example that night. Indeed, Mr. Hinkle complimented me the next day on my professionalism in this meeting, as he had expected me to "explode" in response to the repeated rudeness exhibited by Mr. Starr during the two hour meeting.

Mr. Starr's reaction was understandable, since I was trying to implement policy that would indirectly imply that his handling of private donor data was negligent. Mr. Starr had no way to appropriately manage his conflicts of interests on the DCC and appeared to be trying to manipulate the committee's outcome, by, among other things, limiting my input. By trying to send the DCC's report to the LNC without giving me time for a response, Mr. Carling may have been supporting his close friend in this endeavor.

My chief complaint about the document prepared by other DCC members was that it only specified who had access to donor information without addressing how it should be handled. Thus, it completely ignored the basis of my original motion.

As a remedy, Mr. Flood suggested that his Confidential Disclosure Agreement (CDA) might be amended to address my concerns. He and I agreed to work on this document the next day. Although the CDA now instructs contractors in the handling of confidential donor data, we did not have the time to appropriately adapt it for the LNC; thus, it does nothing to prevent a repeat performance by our Treasurer. My original concerns regarding how the LNC and HQ handle private donor information have still not been addressed. Consequently---and perhaps more importantly---the liability concerns also remain.

The Reason for My Minority Report

Although I was prepared to make this report at the last LNC meeting, it appeared unnecessary since it became quickly evident that the LNC would not accept the DCC's proposed Policy Manual changes. Since Dan Karlan moved to postpone matters until Austin, I assumed the DCC would have time to reconvene and present something to the LNC which would address the concerns outlined above. However, after time was up on this matter, Mr. Starr claimed that the business of the committee was finished, in spite of my objections to the contrary. He continues to do so over my objections on LNC-Discuss.

Since it now appears that the DCC will not be addressing the concerns which led to its formation, I feel compelled to submit this minority report in order to advise the LNC of:

1. The serious nature of the still-existing problem;

2. The need for action beyond what the DCC has proposed;

3. The conflicts of interest which would make further deliberations of the DCC unproductive.

In the near future, I will be proposing motions to deal with these problems since the DCC has not done so.

Wilhoit Declares for Regional Representative Alternate

Scott Williamson — Sat, 16 Jan 2010 23:52:54 GMT

I, Charles Wilhoit, hereby announce my candidacy for the position of Fourth Region Alternate Representative of the Libertarian National Committee (LNC).

I am a Recruiter by nature as well as by reputation. I am proud to say that I recruited Scott Williamson as a candidate for LNC Regional Representative from Region Four. I promised Scott that I would do everything possible to help him achieve his goal, both in being elected in St. Louis and in doing what he promised in his candidate announcement. http://lpmndc.org/index.php?op...

I decided to become a candidate to be a more active supporter for Scott. I choose to be in the Arena, not just the Cheering Section.

I share Scott's goal completely. I agree with everything he said in his candidacy announcement. We are independent of each other as candidates, yet we are a Team in spirit. If elected, we promise that one or both of us will attend every LNC meeting. I have no intention of being a mere "Stand By" Representative. I will be Scott Williamson's working partner.

Charles Wilhoit is a graduate of the U. S. Naval Academy and is a Captain, U. S. Navy (Retired). During his 29 years of active duty he commanded three ships, a Destroyer Squadron and one shore activity. Charles is past Chair of his county Libertarian Party, a past Chair of the Libertarian Party of Tennessee (LPTN) and currently serves as Chair of the LPTN Membership Committee. He was once a candidate for the Tennessee State Senate and for Governor of Tennessee.

To repeat Scott's own words: "I look forward to continually hearing your ideas and working with you to bring about a libertarian society. Together we can change the country. I ask for your support and look forward to meeting you in St. Louis, if not sooner."

Charles Wilhoit can be reached at: likelytn@aol.com. Phone: 865-448-6493. USPS: P.O. Box 156, Townsend, TN 37882

Williamson Declares for Regional Representative

Scott Williamson — Wed, 13 Jan 2010 23:34:23 GMT

With tax revolts springing up through the grassroots, medical marijuana initiatives sweeping the country, and a renewed commitment to ending Real ID, the Libertarian Party has an exciting future ahead. As the liberty message catches on, our party has a unique opportunity to grow and elect candidates nationwide. To harness this political energy to advance the drive for liberty in our country, we need new energy on the Libertarian National Committee.

Last month, I contacted State Party leaders and grass roots activist. I said I was listening. What did you want to tell me? You told me ballot access, outreach, local campaigns, and activist training were at the top of your agenda. I've heard your message. I believe I can help set our party on the path that you asked for. I am excited to announce my candidacy for Regional Representative for the current region four.

Our National Committee's first responsibility is a fiduciary one. Committee members have a moral obligation to insure the party's money is spent wisely. It is not only how much money you spend, but what you are spending the money to do. As a Regional Representative I will seek to change where the LNC spends our money. More of our money should be spent on the work of politics. A key issue is transparency, donors need to know where their money is spent.

You can lose an election and win a campaign. In many states we gain ballot access if a candidate wins a percentage of the state wide vote. If we spent money in these states on statewide campaigns we could gain ballot access in that state. This could lead to spending less on ballot access in Presidential election years and free up more money for campaigns and for ballot access in those states where it is the hardest to gain ballot access.

As your regional representative I will continue listen to what you have to say. By keeping in regular contact with state and local leaders and sharing your good work with the party as a whole, I will facilitate communications between the states in our region, so you can adopt what is working from other states and avoid things that are not working.

The hard work of politics is done by those who volunteer their time and money. It is you the local activist who spreads the message of individual freedom and personal responsibility. It is you the local activist who digs deep into your own pockets to support candidates and issues. Our National committee should be helping you more. The National Committee should provide online, free, usable brochures, web page templates for our candidates, and training for people who want to run for office or campaign for an issue.

As we continue to reach out to those at tax revolts, antiwar rallies, gun festivals, and audit the Fed groups we will expand our party membership. We need to harness the talent and experience we already have in our party and offer training to those who wish to join us in our fight for freedom.

These are just a few ideas that will set us on the paths you advocated in your letters and phone calls last month. I am excited about the future of our party and have the energy to help lead the way. I look forward to continually hearing your ideas and working with you to bring about a libertarian society. Together we can change the country. I ask for your support and look forward to meeting you in Saint Louis, if not sooner.

The current Region 4 includes Alabama, Georgia, Louisiana, Mississippi, North Carolina, South Carolina, Tennessee, and Texas. Scott Williamson is currently the S.T.A.R Representative of Outright Libertarians USA, Chair of Outright Libertarians Nashville and the Secretary for the Libertarian Party of Nashville and Davidson County. He is often a guest on Queer Talk Radio and Out and About TV political round table where he promotes the libertarian philosophy to the GLBT community. Scott holds a degree in Political Science and resides in Nashville, TN with his partner Brian Rhinehart. Scott Williamson can be contacted at scott.williamson01@comcast.net